George Tennant recently said that the “Slam dunk” statement was taken out of context.

Keith Oberman is going to dedicate his show to this development tonight – MSNBC @ 8: pm

As we hear more and more about the reasons for this war, whether it was the so-called CIA evidence or the Valorie Plame debacle, the facts become compellingly obvious.
We went into this war to prove that the Liberals had is wrong in 1945, that the Marshall plan is a fluke.
Some would say that I am over simplifying, but I don’t think so.

We wend to war to prove that the former Trotsky’s (the Neoconservatives) have it right.
We went to war to prove that open markets, unfettered free trade, privatization of industry, and spreading democracy by force is what’s needed to reshape the world, not the principled doctrines of liberal democracy.

The Neocons are afraid of liberal democracy. The find it unstable, open to lasciviousness and majority rule.

I’m sure that the Neocons also wanted to exert our influence in a region of the world that is typically anti-American and that is rich with petrol.

So far, the Neocons are very wrong about many of their assumptions. The world is not interested in their style of democracy — leadership by an elite few, open markets, lies and deception as a means to an end (the perpetual myth) and lastly — war!

I wonder sometimes what Leo Strauss would think of all of this mess in Iraq. I’ll bet that he would be upset that so many people know what a Neocon is let alone the names of the policy makers. A good neocon perpetuates a myth without being well known to the masses.

Do these modern neocons actually read Strauss? I’m betting, with the exception of William Kristol and maybe Wolfowitz; no.

Yes, that is precisely right. The occupation worked. Mostly because we got out of the way. We empowered the locals to rebuild their cities, we funneled in millions of dollars so that the people could work, earn money and pursue their own happiness. The Germans rebuilt Germany, not foreign interests.
We added safeguards into their constitutions that protected workers, provided healthcare, labor unions and several other measures of security. These are liberal principals.

What’s happening in Iraq is a neocon nightmare. Worker safeguards have been removed, what few there were. Privatization has ruined several industries. Infrastructure is in ruins. The people are despirate for work, peace and security.

We are not focusing on infrastructure as we did in Germany and Japan, we lost our opportunity to win the people early on as we put our focus on building military bases and an ambassador complex instead of rebuilding the electrical grid, schools and hospitals.

We could have really made a difference in Iraq by putting the people to work, building their own cities, using their own companies and resources.
Instead, we implemented a plan that would empower multination corporations and import cheaper foreign labor to do the work that the Iraqis know best – rebuilding their cities. Heck, they did it once before. Who better to rebuild?

Additionally, one of the only laws that Paul Bremmer kept on the books is the law against labor unions. Sadam implemented this law in 1987, although it went largely ignored.
But the point is this; what kind of signal did we send to these people when we allowed looting and rioting, outlawed labor unions, broke up nationally owned utilities, build safe zones instead of schools, dismantled their army and imported labor and foreign companies to rebuild instead of hiring local talent.

That is the fundamental difference between the Marshall plan and the Wolfowitz/Neocon plan.

In the simplest terms, the Marshall plan empowered the locals; the neocons removed power from the locals and placed it elsewhere.
So far, the neocon plan has been a complete failure at providing the basic essentials of safety, shelter and sustenance.
It’s not a coincidence that the majority of opposing force in Iraq is Iraqis. It’s also no suprise that they consider themselves an anti-occupation force.
It’s no secret that the prime minister and president of Iraq want us to leave, so does a majority of the people.

Our military is finally starting to understand the complexity of dealing with an insurgency that views the occupying force as the enemy – (See NPR.org keyword COIN)
Our so-called conservative politicians on the other hand are far behind the parade.

So the chickenhawk argument defeats itself. Or else those using it should refrain from making any decision about wars unless they are directly involved with them. But that’s only their principle, not necessarily anyone else’s.

Of course the Constitution disagrees with this argument, also.

Any Yamar is indeed right about the Faux Liberals’ basic m.o. regarding truth and policies, to the effect that, “I say it, therefore it is true.”

Why do you keep citing the CIA for “facts” when the CIA (George Tenet, remember?) said that WMD in Iraq was a “slam dunk”?

Use them only when they fit your meme, eh?

Ymar, what “logic” has DeShawn demonstrated so far? Nothing but contradiction, rationalization, and outright lies, obfuscation, and deflection. I’m still waiting for “logic” from DeShawn.

Logic doesn’t mean you’re right. It is just a set of premises built ontop of others, creating a way of thinking and processing data.

Nope.

Sheesh. Re the 5%, source please. Current CIA Factbook shows 39% Christian.

Isn’t this what’s known as “moving the goalposts”?

The Lebanese Civil War was ended by the signing of the Ta’if Agreement, a diplomatic and political effort leading to peace. Was it a perfect peace? No, but let’s not let perfect be the enemy of better, right?